Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...I have but one question, and you may answer if you like or just keep it as a rhetorical question.
The backstory: I read these boards a lot and there are many people complaining about how they don't like either Obama or Romney. Evidently, this is an epidemic, rather than just a few centrists spouting off.
The question: Why don't y'all investigate the other candidates for President, and vote for the one who most closely matches your ideals? If you hate the two-party political system, why not vote for a "minor" candidate? There are always a half dozen, or so, "minor candidates". You have the power to help abolish the two-party political system. Vote for someone else, other than Obama or Romney. If the minor-party candidates gather a significant amount of the vote, even if they don't win, they will cause the Republican and Democratic party leaders to realize that they're doing something seriously wrong. This country didn't always have just the Republican and Democratic parties. There were Federalists, Whigs, and even Teddy Roosevelt's "Bull Moose" party. These days, there's the Constitution party, Green party, Libertarian party, Socialist party (*shudder*), etc. There are options.
Why not examine those options?
Not a bad idea IF you like the way Obama has run the country for the last four years. Casting a vote for any of the third party candidates is like peeing in the ocean trying to start a tidal wave.
The fix was in, long ago. Our votes did not matter. It was just a charade.
Exactly why I wont even bother going to the polls this year. For the first time ever, I've decided it is all a big joke. Let's see, I can has vanilla, or french vanilla........not enuf difference to bother, just serve it to me like you're gonna anyway, doesnt matter.
If I voted in a competitive state, maybe I'd have that nagging feeling that I'm throwing away my vote by voting for a minor party. Luckily, I'm in a non-competitive state, my vote for prez means zip. So, I'm free as a bird to vote for Gary Johnson.
...I have but one question, and you may answer if you like or just keep it as a rhetorical question.
The backstory: I read these boards a lot and there are many people complaining about how they don't like either Obama or Romney. Evidently, this is an epidemic, rather than just a few centrists spouting off.
The question: Why don't y'all investigate the other candidates for President, and vote for the one who most closely matches your ideals? If you hate the two-party political system, why not vote for a "minor" candidate? There are always a half dozen, or so, "minor candidates". You have the power to help abolish the two-party political system. Vote for someone else, other than Obama or Romney. If the minor-party candidates gather a significant amount of the vote, even if they don't win, they will cause the Republican and Democratic party leaders to realize that they're doing something seriously wrong. This country didn't always have just the Republican and Democratic parties. There were Federalists, Whigs, and even Teddy Roosevelt's "Bull Moose" party. These days, there's the Constitution party, Green party, Libertarian party, Socialist party (*shudder*), etc. There are options.
Why not examine those options?
I utterly despise both Romney and Obama. Normally, I would do precisely as you suggest. In 2008 I voted for the Libertarian candidate Bob Barr. In 2004 I voted for the Veteran's Party of America's candidate retired General "Stormin" Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. In 2000 I voted for a write-in.
However, this election is different. Since the Supreme Court held the Affordable Health Care Act as constitutional, the only hope I have of killing that monstrosity and vile law is to have Congress repeal it. That will only happen if the GOP keep control of the House, gain control of the Senate, and replace Obama. I find that law so offensive and contrary to American values that I am willing to sacrifice my personal principles, hold my nose, and vote for Romney. If he does nothing else but not veto the repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act I will consider his presidency to be a complete success.
A good portion of people base their voting decision out of fear, we have to keep Obama/Romney from winning or they will destroy the country. That is what our democracy has become, some are fear mongers and some are the fearful. But in reality it will be the same BS no matter which one gets the nod.
George Washington knew, from day one, that this would happen. He told the rest of the Founding Fathers that their idea of a two-party political system would divide the country in half... and that there'd be division in the halves as well. Half would vote for one candidate and half would vote for the other, due to party lines only and not because that person is the best one for the job. Furthermore, many people who voted for their party's front-runner would do so not because they especially wanted that person to be president, but because they had a much stronger desire to see the other party's front-runner NOT be president.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Onions
Probably because no one has ever been elected President who didn't come from one of the two major parties of the time.
Well, there can be a first time for everything. In 2008 we elected our first "black" president... which amuses me because not only is he as much white as he is black (though calling him "white" rather than "black" wouldn't be as chic) but he was raised by his white mother when his black father left the family. Yet he identifies as black because it is helpful to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bettyboopster
I see signs for Ron Paul all over the place. But he won't be elected. They just give us the two to make us think we have a "choice."
Ron Paul, in my opinion, made the mistake of trying to be the establishment candidate when he carries distinctly anti-establishment views. He has a horde of extremely devoted followers but he's not "mainstream" enough to be accepted by the mainstream Republican party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Your suggestion may work quite well in 2010 or 2014 but not this time. When we have a Presidential election splitting the votes among a host of third party candidates will result in a man being elected with nothing close to a majority. Then can he say that he has a mandate with no more than say 45% of the popular vote.
Which would actually equal out to being about 22% of the total vote from eligible voters... assuming we have the same "around 50%" voter turnout for this presidential election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Are you willing to split our Congress into 5 parties so that nothing can be done without say three of them getting together to vote?
They aren't doing anything right now anyway with only two parties plus the occasional independent. I say we'd be no worse off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
What happens when the three can't get along and you have to form a new grouping?
The two aren't getting along right now. Therefore, I say that we're already seeing what happens when the parties can't get along. A big fat lot of nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Our system has worked very well all these years but going to presidential government, like now, to parliamentary government all of a sudden, especially like now just isn't going to work.
I don't know why you think our system has worked so well. I started this thread because a lot of people are going to vote in November for a candidate whom they don't especially like nor want to run this country, mostly because they have a much greater distaste for the other party's frontrunner. I don't call that a working system. In a working system, people would be free to vote for whomever they chose, without having to feel any kind of pressure due to the two-party system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Have you missed out on the fact that Democrats want to see what you say happen this time in order to take votes from Romney? I think you have.
Not quite. I remember 1992, and H. Ross Perot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
I have thought about this for a long time and just never see it working in the system our Founders created and our later people have worked out. Yes, we are in all kinds of trouble but what you suggest means that a man who has certain votes "bought" already because of entitlements has to win.
Do you deny that that's true? It seems like a no-brainer to me. Obama has bought all kinds of votes due to his push for, and/or support of, various entitlements in this country. I can't say the same for Romney... after all, he isn't even likely to win his own home state, a state he once governed not that long ago. In 1984, the most one-sided presidential election in modern history, where Reagan won 49 states, Mondale still won his home state of Minnesota. Romney isn't going to get his home state. So what did he buy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Have you noticed that most of the third parties in the past were parties of the great idea or of the great personality? When their platforms get popular enough one or the other major party takes it over and they die. You suggested the Federalists and Whigs who opposed each other in the early days. Then one of them became the Democrati-Republican party and on and on till the Republicans of Lincoln took over with him. Third party government results in parliamentary government and we would have to change, in midstream, from presidential. In other words we would have to change the Constitution if there is still any of it left.
Nope, I don't think what you suggest is wise right now.
Changing the Constitution wouldn't be a bad thing, because as you suggested, there's hardly any of it left. As for parliamentary government, it wouldn't really be like that. It would just have to require a meeting of the minds. Nobody says that would definitely happen, but could the results be any worse than they are right now? I'm only 32 years old, so I don't know a lot about history, but I can tell you that I don't recall one time in recent history when Democrats and Republicans hated each other more than they do now. 2008 was close but 2012 is even worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillwaterTownie
In at least one or two states, it's just Obama and Romney on the presidential part of the ballot.
Makes me wonder why that is... but you can always cast a write-in vote.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sol11
Not a bad idea IF you like the way Obama has run the country for the last four years. Casting a vote for any of the third party candidates is like peeing in the ocean trying to start a tidal wave.
I agree, but that's only because few people will do it. If lots of people would finally abandon the establishment and vote for minor candidates, and if more people would get off their butts and vote, it wouldn't have to be that outcome. Get enough people to pee in the ocean, and all of a sudden the level of detectable pee in the ocean rises. Gee, I wonder why...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
If I voted in a competitive state, maybe I'd have that nagging feeling that I'm throwing away my vote by voting for a minor party. Luckily, I'm in a non-competitive state, my vote for prez means zip. So, I'm free as a bird to vote for Gary Johnson.
Isn't he the socialist guy?
Anyway, what you said brings up a very valid point. Lots of people don't vote because they don't believe their vote will count... for that very reason - being in a "non-competitive state". The presidential candidates aren't even wasting their money advertising in states that they know they won't win.
That means only one thing. It is high time to get rid of the Electoral College and go to a straight popular vote election.
Ron Paul, in my opinion, made the mistake of trying to be the establishment candidate when he carries distinctly anti-establishment views. He has a horde of extremely devoted followers but he's not "mainstream" enough to be accepted by the mainstream Republican party.
Exactly my point: He will never be accepted by a mainstream party. If you are not one of the two mainstream choices, you don't have a chance. That is how the system works. They have two sides, so people feel that that are choosing between one or the other, when in reality, they are choosing one of the two men that can fulfill the duties of their puppet masters. One appeals to liberals, one appeals to conservatives. Everybody thinks they have a side to pick.
I am willing to sacrifice my personal principles, hold my nose, and vote for Romney.
I'm sure the Romney campaign will be ****-a-hoop to know it - they haven't had much good news of late.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
